I've now had a month to watch this business and I've become convinced of a few things:
1. It's not about humanitarianism. How do I know this? By the fact that France is silent about it. I don't know if the French are active participants or not - after all, I only have the regular news sources to go on at this point, but I've watched the French opt out and severely criticize NATO operations in the past and they're not doing it this time. The French never do anything military purely for humanitarian reasons. They always participate in mayhem only in the pursuit of national interest. Thus I deduce that there is something in this for them - some material gain. I don't know what it is yet, but it must be there.
2. It's not a Clinton bagatelle to secure a place in history, imitate George Bush, distract attention from something or other. I know this because it's eroding the already weak position of Al Gore for 2000, which is supposed to be the raison d'etre of Clinton in his last two years. In addition, it's costing an arm and a leg, the objectives remain clear as mud, it's obviously having an effect the polar opposite of the announced intentions on the ground, and a rationale is developing now for the inception of a ground war that everyone agrees would be a quagmire to end all quagmires (11 points for me!).
3. Russia, despite statements to the contrary is, operatively speaking, cooperating. This would seem to be a counterintuitive analysis, but look at what's not happening, then tell me that they are opposing us. If they were seriously upset they would at least be making loud and continuous noise in the Security Council, and threatening to default on their loans. On the contrary, they are playing back channel games and angling for more money. My conclusion: they were bought beforehand, and we are seeing the results of their purchase in their ineffectual handwringing and telephone diplomacy.
Three points is a magic number and
enough for now. The published "thinkers" I've read appear to be as
much in the dark as I regarding the basic why of this operation,
which I feel reasonably confident at this point in labeling as EVIL.
Possible motives have included:
a. Oil reserves, either Black Sea or Middle East, and possible pipelines. One of my friends points out that a pipeline through the mountainous Balkans is logistically pretty silly, but a Balkans rendered into a ruined wasteland might show up some other more stable and topologically benevolent country (Turkey, for instance) in a better light.
b. Testing new military hardware, software, and strategy. Seems a little foolish, this proposition. Very expensive. Humanitarian fallout unacceptable for simple weapons testing. Nix that idea.
c. Some unknown natural resource in Kosovo to be obtained for the West. What? Magnetic monopoles? Encapsulated black holes? Antigravitium?
Oil is the best bet in my book, but
there's still something missing from the equation. They don't know
what it is, and I don't either. Do you?